1. Field of the Invention
The invention lies in the general field of gear related to fishing, and more specifically, to gear designed to retain fish prior to their release at depths where the fish will survive its return to the ocean or lake.
2. Definition of the Problem Addressed by this Invention
Many species of fish caught by both recreational and commercial fishing operations are found at depths where barotrauma occurs when the fish is caught and brought to the surface. Barotrauma is defined as a “pressure shock” which occurs when certain species of fish—particularly rockfish—that contain a swim bladder, which is a gas-filled organ normally located behind the stomach of the fish, are caught and brought to the surface rapidly (as is normally the case when a fish is caught on a hook and line). As the fish rises vertically in the water column, the water pressure on the fish decreases rapidly as the fish is pulled up from deeper water to the surface. For example, a fish caught 100 feet down in a lake or ocean is living under approximately three atmospheres of pressure, and many commercially-fished species are caught in water several hundred feet deep. As the water pressure decreases, gases expand in the swim bladder, quickly making it swell. Since the swim bladder is inside the fish, as it expands it pushes against the stomach, often forcing the stomach outside of its mouth.
Not all the fish caught by both recreational and commercial fishing operations are “keepers”, or, those fish which the fisherperson wishes to kill and use for food. If the fish suffering from barotrauma is then released, most commonly by throwing back into the ocean, it normally will not survive, as the fish has no mechanism to force the gas to escape from its swim bladder. A released fish suffering from barotrauma is often called a “floater”, as it cannot swim down from the surface, and often lies sideways on the surface, unable to do more than flap its fins as it ineffectively tries to swim back down to its natural habitat. Natural predators such as seals, sea lions, and birds have grown accustomed to sport and commercial fishing boats leaving behind large numbers of floaters, so they tend to follow such boats and eat the fish as they lie on the surface.
Why are there so Many “Floaters”?
There are many species that are protected or have limits on the number or size of individuals that can be retained for human consumption. Some rockfish species, such as the Canary Rockfish and Yelloweye Rockfish, are protected in some areas by law from any sport or commercial taking However, since these rockfish are often found at depths exceeding 100 feet (indeed, the average depth for adult Yelloweye Rockfish is 300 to 590 feet), many of the individuals caught end up dying on the surface as “floaters” after they are released.
Other species have limits, such as the Bocaccio, which has a limit in California of two per fisherperson with a minimum size of 10 inches total length. The Bocaccio lives at an average depth of 250 to 750 feet, so most Bocaccio caught will have barotrauma when they are pulled to the surface. So, when a fisherperson pulls in a Bocaccio that is 9 inches long, that fish is thrown back, where it is very likely to perish on the surface. Indeed, if a particular fisherman catches 20 Bocaccio and all are less than 10 inches in length, it is a safe assumption that most if not all of the 20 will end up dead. Conversely, if a fisherman catches 2 Bocaccio “keepers” of, say, 15 inches each, and then catches 10 more Bocaccio all above 10 inches in length, it is a safe assumption that of the 12 Bocaccio caught, all will end up dead: two going home with the fisherman and 10 being killed as floaters.
The result of the ineffective methods of releasing fish with barotrauma is that an enormous number of protected and juvenile fish are killed every year outside of the legal “limits” on species, number and size of fish actually kept by the fisherpeople. It is estimated that the number of “floaters” which are killed as a byproduct of sport and commercial fishing operations sometimes equals or in some cases exceeds the number of “keepers”. With this constant pressure on the number of fish, the average size of “keeper” fish has dropped noticeably over the past several decades. This has negatively impacted sport and commercial fishing industries, consumers of seafood, and, most importantly, the fish species themselves, as a substantial amount of their population is worthlessly killed every year.
Thus, a problem presents itself: How to decrease the number of “floaters”?
Prior Art and Other Attempts to Address this Problem.
It has been known for some time and if a fish suffering from barotrauma can be descended to a depth of 100 feet or deeper within 10 minutes of its emergence at the surface, it has a very good chance at surviving. Indeed, the California Department of Fish and Game states that “83% of fish caught at depths between 217 and 350 feet, survived when returned to depth within 2 minutes”, and they site studies that show that many of the returned fish were still alive 1.5 years later.
There have been several approaches to getting a barotrauma victim back to a safe depth. A simple solution was to turn a weighted milk crate upside down over a floater, then lower the crate to a depth of 60 feet or more, whereupon the gas in the fish's swim bladder will recompress and the fish can swim away under its own power. While this method is theoretically possible, it does not work well in rough seas, requires considerable time and effort on the part of the fisherperson, and may damage the fish's eyes as they are scraped across the openings in the bottom and sides of the milk crate.
It is important to realize that unless there are laws passed that mandate the use of a fish release device such as this invention on recreational and commercial fishing boats, the proverbial “tragedy of the commons” will result in all too many cases. A commercial fisherman may not want to spend a large amount of time releasing non-keepers, as this will cut into the time he has to catch and prepare keepers for market. A recreational fishing boat may also not want to invest more time into releasing fish than in catching them, as is the case with a milk carton where a fisherman can haul up a fish in less than a minute but it can take between 5 and 10 minutes to lower the milk crate and haul it back to the surface. Thus, having a fish release device that works quickly and efficiently is very important to convince both recreational and commercial fishermen to invest in such a device and to use it.
A second approach was to take a weight with a barbless hook, hook the floater through its lower lip, then have the weight descend the fish to 100 feet or so of depth. When the pressure is enough to compress the gas in the swim bladder, the fish can theoretically wiggle around and dislodge the barbless hook. There are several potential problems with this approach. First, you have to put another hole in the fish's mouth to try to save it. Second, the fish can hook its extended stomach on the hook, whether it is barbless or not, causing further damage to the fish.
A third approach was the “Git-R-Down” fish release. This device has opposing jaws that can grasp a rockfish's lower lip, with the pressure applied by a large weight at the bottom of the device. When the device is lowered to the bottom, the weight is taken off the jaws; they open and release the fish. This device however requires a hard bottom to release the fish, which presents some problems. First, it has been proven that even for a fish caught several hundred feet below the surface of the ocean, if you can just get it back down to 100 feet of depth, which is usually sufficient to allow it to swim away under its own power. By requiring a fisherperson to get the barotrauma victim all the way back to the bottom (sometimes 500 feet or deeper), it will require a significant amount more time, which will decrease the likelihood that the fisherperson will use the device. Second, not all barotrauma victims are caught on the bottom and the angler may not have sufficient line on the reel to get the fish to the bottom. Third, the device is large and bulky, which both increases its cost and decreases the likelihood that an angler will bring it along on a fishing trip.
Thus there exists a need for a compact and efficient device that can descend a rockfish or other fish suffering from barotraumas back down to a water depth sufficient to allow the swim bladder to decompress to a size where the fish can swim away under its own power. The current invention provides just such a solution by providing an invention comprising a spring-loaded set of opposing members with tip portions capable of retaining the lip of a fish suffering from barotrauma to a depth sufficient to reverse the effects of barotrauma prior to releasing the fish. A preferred embodiment of the invention is a fish release device that has two opposing members that are combined by a coiled spring section, where each of the two opposing members has curved tip portions that can pinch together and grasp the lower lip of a barotrauma victim. The angler can attach a weight to the bottom of the device and then sink the device and the fish to a depth sufficient to reverse the effects of barotrauma prior to releasing the fish. The opposing members cross over each other such that the jaws can be temporarily opened merely by tugging upward on the line attached to the device. Once the jaws are opened, the fish normally swims away rapidly, before the jaws close again. The device is small, compact, and can be used with a variety of fish species and sizes. The current invention provides just such a solution by providing a fish release device
It should be understood that while the preferred embodiments of the invention are described in some detail herein, the present disclosure is made by way of example only and that variations and changes thereto are possible without departing from the subject matter coming within the scope of the following claims, and a reasonable equivalency thereof, which claims I regard as my invention.
Indeed, it is specifically disclosed that alternative methods of achieving similar results can be found in which there is no spring at all; rather the compression between the jaws can be caused through the use of resilient wire, plastic and other compounds.